
Viability. The first heuristic we identified was whether the scenario can be easily built from existing technologies in a satisfactory manner. This judgment criterion is associated with the moral dimension of fairness (any prototype of a technology that is hard to build would inevitably fall short and would be ridden with inaccuracies and biases). For example, in an online meeting, accurately tracking facial expressions is technically easy to do using webcams. By contrast, tracking body postures is still a hard problem because it requires a combination of wearable sensors such as multiple gyroscopes (e.g., a couple on the earphones [1]}, [2]}, and the other on a smart watch), which ends up producing spurious classifications of body postures.

Non-intrusiveness. Another heuristic was whether the scenario did not interfere with work or, more generally, was fit for purpose. This judgment criterion was associated with the two moral dimensions of authority (when the technology is invasive and authoritarian) and loyalty (when the technology disrespects one's way of working and, as often mentioned by our respondents, it has been misused). For example, tracking eye movements in online meetings, despite being possible, was considered to be unfit for productivity tracking and be “on the way” of getting the job done. By contrast, tracking text messages in collaboration tools such as Slack was considered to not interfere with work (unobtrusive) and fit for the purpose of tracking productivity (not misused).

Responsibility. The final heuristic was whether the scenario was considered responsible in that it did not cause any harm, or infringed on any individual rights. This was associated with the two moral dimensions of harm (when the technology has negative effects on individuals) and purity (when the technology is seen to disrespect one's beliefs). For example, tracking audio conversations in online meetings was considered to be possible (viable), and fit for purpose, yet it was considered to be harmful, as it entailed tracking not only whether a meeting took place but also its content.

<FIGURE>